The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm

Relationships
Relationships between the between audits
integration of audits and and systems
management systems
659
An empirical study
Received February 2009
Merce Bernardo Revised June 2010
Dep. d’Economia i Organitzacio d’Empreses, Universitat de Barcelona, August 2010
Barcelona, Spain Accepted August 2010

Marti Casadesus
Dep. d’Organitzacio, Gestio Empresarial i Disseny de Producte,
Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain
Stanislav Karapetrovic
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada, and
Iñaki Heras
Dep. de Organizacion de Empresas, Universidad del Paı́s Vasco,
San Sebastian, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the application and the level of integration of internal
and external audits in organizations that are registered to multiple management system standards.
Design/methodology/approach – Using descriptive analyses, this work examines the manner in
which organizations, categorized in a previous study with respect to the degree of integration of their
standardized management systems (MSs), apply and integrate the related MS audits. The sample
included 435 Spanish organizations registered to ISO 9001: 2000 and ISO 14001: 2004 at the minimum.
Findings – It was found that organizations that exhibited a higher level of integration of their
standardized MSs also demonstrated more highly-integrated audits. In addition, the level of
integration was generally higher for internal compared with the external audits.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitation was related to the survey responses,
because they were asked and obtained from the organizations’ managers only, and not from the
registrars or other external audit bodies.
Originality/value – The study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the usage of
auditing systems in organizations, in particular the level of integration of internal and external MS
audits relative to the integration of the corresponding MSs.
Keywords Auditing, Integrated management systems, Integration levels, ISO 14001, ISO 9001,
ISO 9000 series, Quality audit, Information systems
Paper type Research paper

The TQM Journal

This article was written as part of a research project entitled “Improving customer satisfaction in Vol. 23 No. 6, 2011
Spanish companies through standardisation” (ECO2009-12754-C02-01) with funding made pp. 659-672
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
available by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for Research, Development and 1754-2731
Innovation (R þ D þ i) projects. DOI 10.1108/17542731111175266
TQM 1. Introduction
23,6 The proliferation of Management System Standards (MSSs) in the first decade of this
century (e.g., see ISO, 2009) has opened new possibilities for their integrative
applications (e.g., see ISO, 2008). Organizations with two or more standardized
Management Systems (MSs) can integrate these systems to become more efficient and
to capitalize on the synergies among them (Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998; Seghezzi,
660 2001; Karapetrovic, 2003; Zeng et al., 2007). Other advantages of integration include the
simplification of MS requirements, optimization of resources, reduction of audit costs
and increased satisfaction of stakeholders (e.g., Wilkinson and Dale, 1999a, b;
Beckmerhagen et al., 2003; Zutshi and Sohal, 2005). Apart from these advantages,
however, various difficulties have also been discussed in the literature. The main
difficulties are related to MS models and common elements, lack of employee
motivation and fear of job losses due to integration (e.g., Karapetrovic, 2003;
Beckmerhagen et al., 2003; Zeng et al., 2007).
The integration process can be defined, according to Beckmerhagen et al. (2003), as:
a process of putting together different function-specific management systems into a single
and more effective integrated management system.
Four important aspects characterize this process. The first one relates to the
organization deciding upon the strategy to follow in the integration, for example
implementing the Quality Management System (QMS) first and the Environmental
Management System (EMS) second (e.g., Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998). The second
aspect refers to the methodology used in the process, which could be based, for
instance, on a standard or a guidance document published by a standardization body,
such as SAI Global (1999), Dansk Standard (2005), AENOR (2005), BSI (2006), and ISO
(2008), or on an academic or practical literature (e.g., Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998;
Karapetrovic, 2003, 2005; Labodová, 2004; Zeng et al., 2007).
This paper addresses the connections between the third and fourth aspects of the
integration process. Namely, the third one is concerned with the achievable MS
integration levels, since such levels depend on how the process is realized in each case
(e.g., Karapetrovic, 2003; Bernardo et al., 2009). The literature on the levels of
integration of standardized MSs reflects such different possibilities. From the
theoretical perspective, examples of the related studies include Seghezzi (1997),
Wilkinson and Dale (1999a), Kirkby (2002), Karapetrovic (2002, 2003), Beckmerhagen
et al. (2003), Pojasek (2006), and Jørgensen et al. (2006). Although smaller in numbers,
empirical studies, such as Douglas and Glen (2000), Fresner and Engelhardt (2004),
Zeng et al. (2005), Zutshi and Sohal (2005), Karapetrovic et al. (2006), Zeng et al. (2007),
Salomone (2008), Bernardo et al. (2009, 2010), and Karapetrovic and Casadesus (2009),
also exist. Finally, the fourth aspect, which is specifically focused on here, is the
integration of internal and external audits (see, e.g. Karapetrovic and Willborn, 2000;
ISO, 2002; Karapetrovic, 2002; Salomone, 2008; Bernardo et al., 2010).
As some of the above-mentioned studies show, integration of internal and external
audits is the aspect of the integration progress least researched empirically, although
there are some examples, such as Salomone (2008) and Bernardo et al. (2009, 2010).
Results from the available empirical analyses show that internal auditing is among the
most integrated processes in the MSs of the studied organizations (Salomone, 2008,
Bernardo et al., 2009). Evidently, it can be expected that the more integrated MSs are,
the more integrated the respective internal audits will be. In addition, the actual levels Relationships
of integration of internal audits or other subsystems can be related to such levels in the between audits
overarching MSs (see, e.g. Bernardo et al., 2009). It is also possible to analyze the
integration of auditing subsystems in the same manner as for the MSs themselves, and systems
namely based on the levels of integration of the main system components, i.e. audit
goals, resources, and processes.
Since external audits are not subsystems of the studied organizations’ MSs (as 661
indicated in ISO 9001: 2008, internal audits are a process of the MSs, but no reference to
external audits is made in that sense), establishing such a relationship between the
levels of integration of these audits, on one hand, and of the MSs, on the other, will be
challenging (Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998; Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008; Darnall
et al., 2009). In a 1990s study of registrars, Wilkinson and Dale (1998) found that they
did not offer integrated external audits at the time, but they offer “training on the
integration” of MSs. Still, it is reasonable to expect that if the MSs of the audited
organizations are integrated, the more likely it would be that the external audits are
integrated, as well (Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008). In any case, the integration of external
audits can also be analyzed through the levels of integration of the same system
components as for the internal ones.
It should be noted that international standards covering both internal and external
MS audits have been published, namely ISO 19011 and ISO 17021. While internal and
external auditors alike can follow the ISO 19011 guidelines (ISO, 2002), the ISO 17021
requirements are specifically aimed at registrars (ISO, 2006).
Overall, it can be expected that the results will differ depending on the type of
audits, considering the differences in the objectives (e.g., Bamber et al., 2004; Power and
Terziovski, 2005; Darnall et al., 2009) and the processes applied in internal and external
audits, respectively.
The main objective of this paper is to analyze the degrees of integration of internal
and external audits with respect to the specific levels of integration of standardized
MSs in organizations. The study described here could be used by both academics and
practitioners, and contributes to a better understanding of the integration of the audit
systems and their components. The methodology used and the results obtained are
provided first. Subsequently, the main findings are summarized and some ideas for
future such studies and examinations are presented.

2. Methodology
The methodology used in this paper is the same as in Bernardo et al. (2009). A mail
survey was sent out in 2006 and 2007 to 1,615 Spanish organizations registered to both
ISO 9001: 2000 and ISO 14001: 2004. As explained in the paper, 435 valid responses,
representing a 27 percent response rate, were obtained. Organizations belonging to the
sample are mainly (70 percent) small and medium sized. 42 percent of them operate in
the production sector, while 16 percent are in construction. In the present analysis of
the integration of audit systems, the same sample as in Bernardo et al. (2009) is used.
For the purposes of this research, we utilize the levels of integration proposed by
Bernardo et al. (2009). In that study, organizations with multiple MSS certificates were
categorized into the following four groups, according to the degree of integration of the
goals, resources and processes of the implemented MSs:
TQM (1) Group 0 was formed by 73 organizations (17 percent of the sample), which had
23,6 not integrated their standardized MSs. Therefore, the level of integration of MS
goals, resources or processes was not examined for this group. These
organizations from Group 0 operate mostly in the production sector (45 percent)
and have less than 250 employees (71 percent).
(2) Group 1 was characterized by partial integration of MSs. It consisted of only 8
662 organizations, (71 percent) of which have less than 250 employees, and mainly
(57 percent) operate in the production and construction sectors. Due to such a
small number, the results from this group were taken with caution. They
indicated an average integration level of 29 percent for the goals and resources,
with record control (100 percent) and management review (94 percent) being the
most integrated processes. Due to its small size and lower significance
compared to the other groups, this cluster of organizations will not be further
analyzed.
(3) Group 2 had a higher level of integration than the preceding group, with 41
organizations categorized in it. The group is mostly composed of organizations
with less than 250 employees (64 percent) and largely belonging to the
production sector (32 percent). On average, goals and resources were integrated
at 62 percent, the highest being the policy (78 percent), objectives (66 percent)
and the manual (67 percent). The processes were integrated at 66 percent, with
internal communication (74 percent) and internal audits (71 percent) being the
most integrated.
(4) Group 3 consisted of 71 percent of the sample, or 310 organizations. They have
250 employees or less in 69 percent of the cases and operate mostly in the
production sector (42 percent). This group had the highest level of integration
among the four identified groups, although this level was not 100 percent. Goals
and resources were integrated at the average level of 86 percent and processes
at 96 percent. From the first set of components, the MS manual (94 percent),
policy and objectives (87 percent) were integrated the most, while amongst the
processes, it was document and record control (99 percent).

The survey questionnaire contained 16 questions on issues related to the integration of

MSs, such as the challenges encountered during the process and models used to
integrate MSs. One of the two questions devoted to MS audits contained eight
sub-questions, examining how external and internal audits were conducted in the
surveyed organizations. These variables were classified in two groups. The first group
of variables related to the integration of audits, with degrees varying from no
integration to complete integration. The second group related to the methodology used
in the audits, for example the frequency of conducting individual audits. The
respondents were asked to choose one of the different answers that were provided for
each question.
In order to relate the integration of both internal and external audits to the groups
obtained in Bernardo et al. (2009), the following three variables from the set
corresponding to audit integration were taken into account:
(1) “Audit team”, defined in the ISO 19011: 2002 audit guideline as “one or more
auditors conducting an audit supported if needed by technical experts” (ISO,
 2002). In organizations with multiple MSSs, audits of the respective MSs can be Relationships
conducted by a single or multiple auditors or teams (ISO, 2002). The survey between audits
contained three possible options for the response, namely that auditors were the
same for all implemented MSSs (“full integration”), were the same for certain and systems
MSSs only (“partial integration”) and that auditors were different for all MSSs
used (“no integration”).
(2) “Audit time” (“simultaneity”), related to whether or not audits of different MSs 663
were conducted at the same time (ISO, 2002). The respondents also had three
possibilities, specifically to indicate that audits against all MSSs were
conducted at the same time (“full integration”), that audits against some, but not
all, MSSs were conducted simultaneously (“partial integration”), or that they
were conducted at different times (“no integration”).
(3) “Audit plan and audit report”. A single variable was used in this case, although
audit plans basically represent the inputs of MS audits and are defined as
“descriptions of the activities and arrangements for an audit” (ISO, 2002), while
audit reports are outputs or “source of information that is used for review of the
MS” (ISO, 2002). Audit plans, just like the reports, can be integrated into a single
document, or remain separate. To evaluate the levels of integration with respect
to this variable, organizations had three possible options, namely that audits
used a single plan and a single report (“full integration”), that only a single plan,
but separate audit reports were generated for different MSSs (“partial
integration”), and that audits were conducted using different plans and different
reports (“no integration”).

In the following two sections, the data are analyzed descriptively for internal and
external audits, respectively. The intent is to examine the level of integration of audits
with respect to the three above variables and within each of the four groups of
organizations identified in Bernardo et al. (2009). The methodology for identifying the
levels of integration of audits is the same as used by Bernardo et al. (2009) to determine
the integration levels for the respective standardized MSs. In other words, for each
variable related to audits, three possible levels of integration were determined and
subsequently labelled with “0 percent”, “50 percent” or “100 percent” to indicate “no”,
“partial” and “full” integration, respectively.

3. Internal audits
Figure 1 shows the average level of integration of selected internal audit components,
such as audit goals, resources and processes, for the three groups of organizations (“0”,
“2” and “3”) and with respect to the audit “team”, “time” and “plan and report”
variables. This level is fairly high for all three groups, particularly for the audit “team”
variable. Since the groups indicate particular overall levels of integration of
standardized MSs, listed in increasing order (from Group 0 exhibiting “no integration”
to the “most integrated” Group 3), Figure 1 relates the level of integration of internal
audits with the level of integration of the corresponding standardized MSs.
Results from Bernardo et al. (2009) showed that Group 0 organizations integrated
their internal auditing processes at the average level of 78 percent. Therefore, it can be
stated that these organizations actually integrate at least some components of their
auditing subsystems. However, it seems that not having integrated other subsystems
TQM
23,6

664

Figure 1.
Level of integration of
internal audits by level of
integration of
standardized MSs

brings about the perception of these organizations that their standardized MSs are not
integrated. In terms of the internal audit resources and processes, this group integrates
audit teams at 67 percent, likely indicating that single audit teams are applied to
conduct audits against a selected set of MSSs. Nevertheless, the level of integration
with respect to the other two variables studied is lower, approximately at 48 percent for
both. Thus, internal audit resources and processes exhibit some level of integration,
although the overarching MSs were not reported as integrated.
The level of integration in Group 2 ranges from 65 percent to 71 percent (Figure 1).
The organizations from this group reported an average level of integration of their
internal audit processes of 71 percent (Bernardo et al., 2009). This number is practically
identical to the level of integration reported for the audit “team” and “plan and report”
variables, respectively. However, the “time” variable shows a lower average level of
integration at 65 percent, indicating that “simultaneous audits” in this group of
organizations are less prevalent than the “joint” audits (i.e. audits performed by a
single audit team – see ISO, 2002) or audits conducted with a single audit plan and
report.
For Group 3, which is not only the largest of the four identified groups, but is also
characterized by the highest level of integration of MSs, the integration of internal
audits is the strongest. The organizations from this group reported a 97 percent
integration level for internal audit processes (Bernardo et al., 2009). As Figure 1
illustrates, the audit “plan and report” variable shows the highest degree of integration
among the three studied variables, at 82 percent, followed by the audit “team” and
“time”. Interestingly, the level of integration of the audit processes reported by these
organizations in the section of the survey related to the integration of different MS
processes, namely 97 percent, is higher than the indicated level of integration of the
audit components studied through the audit “team”, “time” and “plan and report”
variables. This could be due to various reasons, for instance not including in the study
one or more variables that are more related to the auditing process itself.
Consequently it seems that there is a fairly consistent pattern of integration of
internal audits among these groups (Groups 0, 2 and 3). Overall, the integration of
internal audits augments, and in terms of the corresponding levels also follows, the
integration of the underlying MSs. For all three variables studied, the levels of Relationships
integration of audits relate to such levels in MSs. Namely, Group 0, characterized by
separate MSs, also shows the lowest level of integration of audit resources and
between audits
processes. It is followed by Group 2, which shows less-integrated teams, plans and and systems
reports, as well as more audits conducted at different times, compared to Group 3.
Therefore, the results point out that organizations with a higher degree of integration
of their MSs seem to also have more integrated internal audit components. 665
4. External audits
Figure 2 illustrates the degree of integration of external audits, contrasted with the
levels of integration of the underlying standardized MSs. Compared to internal audits,
external audit components related to the audit “team” and “plan and report” variables
exhibit a lower level of integration, while it seems that external audits are conducted
simultaneously to a higher degree than internal audits.
When Figure 2 results are analyzed with respect to each group, Group 0 has the
lowest level of integration. Audit “plans and reports” are integrated at about the 48
percent level, while the “time” variable resulted in a 43 percent integration level. The
least integrated component is the audit “team”, showing a level of only 35 percent and
indicating that most external audits of the organizations from this group are conducted
by separate audit teams. Therefore, at least in the case of this group, it seems that
external audits themselves reflect the actual separation of the MSs being audited.
However, these results are in contrast with the internal audit findings. This is
particularly true for audit teams, which were integrated in internal audits at almost
double the level of the external audits. Such a finding is not surprising, considering the
focus on the efficient use of available resources in internal audits and the availability of
expertise in external audits (e.g., see Baldi, 1999; Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008; and
Darnall et al., 2009).
Groups 2 and 3 are characterized by similar levels of integration of external audits
(Figure 2), which could indicate that registrars do not distinguish between
organizations with different levels of MSs integration (Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008).
Specifically, for Group 2 organizations, the most integrated resource is audit “time”,

Figure 2.
Level of integration of
external audits by level of
integration of
standardized MSs
TQM indicating that external audits of the implemented MSs are conducted simultaneously.
23,6 The audit time variable is followed by the audit “plan and report”, while the least
integrated component is the audit “team”, at only 56 percent. This is almost 15 percent
less than in the case of internal audit teams for the organizations from this group.
For Group 3, simultaneous audits are indicated at the highest level of 76 percent
among the three variables. There is about a 2 percent difference between Groups 3 and
666 2 with respect to audit plans and reports. It is the opposite, although also not
significantly different, in the case of audit “teams”, where the 54 percent level for
Group 3 is about 2 percent less than for Group 2. Again, Group 3 is characterized by a
higher level of integration of internal audit teams, plans and reports, while
simultaneous audits are indicated by similar percentages for both internal and external
audits.
Overall, it cannot be affirmed that a higher level of integration of standardized MSs
brings about a higher level of integration of external audits in all the studied variables
and for the analyzed groups. This relationship holds for the audit “time” variable,
slightly also for the audit “plan and report” variable, but not for the audit “teams”.
Therefore, the relationship between the integration of external audits, on one side, and
the integration of MSs, on the other, seems to be different than in the case of internal
audits.

5. Further comparative analysis

To better understand the differences in the integration levels between the internal and
external audits, two additional variables are studied, namely the audit “process” and
“results”. The “process” variable is drawn from the question posed to the surveyed
organizations on how auditors were auditing different MSSs, i.e. as absolutely
independent MSs (0 percent integration level), as interrelated MSs (50 percent), or as a
unique IMS (100 percent). The findings of the analysis for this variable are presented in
Figure 3. In terms of the “results” variable, the responding organizations indicated
whether or not auditors presented the opportunities for improvement of the integration
of MSs. It is important to note here that, according to ISO 17021, auditors:
may identify opportunities for improvement but shall not recommend specific solutions (ISO,
2006).

Figure 3.
Audit “process” variable
for internal and external
audits
Findings for this variable are presented in Figures 4 and 5 for internal and external Relationships
audits, respectively. between audits
Figure 3 shows that, even though Group 0 is characterized by separate MSs, internal
auditors seem to view these systems as interrelated or integrated at least to some and systems
degree. A slightly lower, but still a rather significant, level of integration of
approximately 30 percent is evident for external audits of this group, as well.
Therefore, the perceptions of the level of integration of MSs, on one side, and of the 667
auditors when they audit these systems, on the other, clearly differ.

Figure 4.
Audit “results” variable
for internal audits

Figure 5.
Audit “results” variable
for external audits
TQM For Group 2, this variable is characterized by an integration level of 63 percent for
23,6 internal and 59 percent for external audits. These results allow for the interpretation
that the perceptions of auditors and the reported level of integration of MSs coincide,
since MSs are partially integrated and auditors are actually auditing them as such,
i.e. mostly as interrelated and, in some organizations, as integrated MSs.
Finally, for Group 3, the level of integration with respect to this variable is higher
668 than in all other groups, and is higher for the internal than for the external audits. In
this sense, we can state that internal auditors audit the implemented standardized MSs
largely as integrated MSs, since the corresponding integration level is quite high. On
the other hand, external audits seem to exhibit a slightly lower such level, indicative
perhaps of a higher prevalence of audits of interrelated, rather than integrated, MSs.
The analyses related to the audit “results” variable are presented in continuation,
for both the internal (Figure 4) and external audits (Figure 5). As mentioned above, the
findings are separated into two categories depending on whether or not auditors
suggest opportunities for the improvement of the integration of MSs.
For internal audits, as can be expected, Groups 2 and 3 that have higher levels of MS
integration also obtain suggestions for the improvement of such integration to a higher
degree. For Group 0 this tendency is reversed, with about a third of organizations from
Group 0 obtaining such feedback from the auditors. An interesting finding is that in
Group 0, a significant portion of organizations are still receiving suggestions on how to
improve the integration of their MSs from internal auditors.
External audit findings (Figure 5) do not differ much with the internal audits.
Therefore, a significant number of organizations from Groups 2 and 3, specifically
about two thirds for both groups, benefit from external auditors’ suggestions for
improvement of the integration of the organizations’ MSs. Again, Group 0 exhibits the
opposite tendency.
In summary, findings related to the “process” variable appear to differ from the
discussions of Wilkinson and Dale (1998), since for the sample of organizations studied
herein, external and internal auditors do differentiate between integrated and separate
MSs (Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008). With respect to the “results” variable, the findings
seem to show that, for a higher level of integration of the overall MSs, there is also a
higher tendency of auditors to propose opportunities for improvement of the
integration of these MSs, and not only detect nonconformities. One possible
explanation may be derived from the notion of continual improvement, namely that the
improvement of MS integration also facilitates improvements of both internal
efficiency and external performance (ISO, 2004).

6. Conclusions
The objective of this paper was to analyze the level of integration of internal and
external audits in organizations that integrate, to a specific degree, their standardized
MSs. In order to accomplish this objective, the results related to MS audits from an
empirical survey of 435 organizations with multiple MSS certificates were compared
for the four groups of these organizations, originally categorized according to the level
of integration of their standardized MSs in Bernardo et al. (2009).
The integration of audit system components were particularly focused on. The
analysis included a total of five variables. Three of these variables related to the
integration of audit teams, timing, and audit plans and reports in audits against
different MSSs, respectively. The remaining two variables were used to better explain Relationships
the obtained levels of integration of audits. They related to the manner in which audits between audits
were undertaken with respect to the degree of integration of the audited systems and
whether or not auditors also suggested opportunities for improvement of the and systems
integration of MSs, apart from identifying nonconformities in MSs. The results
obtained from the analysis allow the drawing of five conclusions, as follows.
The first conclusion is related to the organizations that declared their standardized 669
MSs to be separate. Despite this declaration, we found that the organizations from this
group still integrate their internal audits to a certain degree. This could be the result of
some of these organizations starting the integration process and integrating the
“common elements” of MSs, including internal audits, first (e.g., Karapetrovic, 2002,
2003; Pojasek, 2006). Furthermore, external audits of these organizations also exhibit
some integration, which also stands to reason. This is because external auditors also
need to focus on efficiency and effectiveness that integrated audits provide, while
minimizing disruptions and redundancies of multiple audits (Baldi, 1999; Karapetrovic
and Willborn, 2000, 2001; Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008; Darnall et al., 2009).
Second, it was possible to identify a tendency for the three analyzed groups of
organizations, specifically Groups 0, 2 and 3. Namely, on average, as the level of
integration of standardized MSs increases, so does the level of integration of internal
audit components, and thus the integration of the internal audits themselves. However,
this tendency is not particularly clear for external audits, although these audits tend to
be integrated to a certain degree for most organizations. The existence of integration in
both these types of audits can be expected, since, for instance, internal audits are
essentially subsystems of the overall MSs in organizations, while organizations prefer
to have integrated internal and external audits alike and to obtain synergies from such
an application (e.g., Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998; Wilkinson and Dale, 1999a;
Douglas and Glen, 2000; Karapetrovic and Jonker, 2003; Zutshi and Sohal, 2005;
Karapetrovic and Casadesus, 2009).
The third important finding is that internal audits are more integrated than external
audits in the majority of the analyzed aspects. One exception is that, in Group 2,
external audits seem to be conducted simultaneously to a higher degree than the
internal audits. This could be since the objectives of internal and external audits are
different (e.g., Bamber et al., 2004, Power and Terziovski, 2005; Darnall et al., 2009), or
that the training and competence necessary to conduct audits is easier to obtain
internally than externally (Wilkinson and Dale, 1998; Douglas and Glen, 2000; Power
and Terziovski, 2005; Darnall et al., 2009).
The fourth finding concerns the manner in which audits are conducted with respect
to the level of integration of the audited MSs. Specifically, it seems that, to a certain
degree, auditors perceive, and thus audit, non-integrated MSs from Group 0 as
integrated, and at least for these two groups, the way that audits are conducted does
not coincide with the way audited systems are organized. For Groups 2 and 3, however,
auditors do seem to audit standardized MSs as interrelated or integrated, thus largely
reflecting the actual situation regarding the integration of MSs in these organizations.
It can also be concluded that the differences between internal and external audits in
this respect, except for Group 3, are insignificant (e.g., see Wilkinson and Dale, 1998;
Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008).
TQM The fifth and final conclusion relates to the results of audits. We found that
23,6 differences exist between the four groups of organizations, thus depending on the level
of integration of MSs, but not between internal and external audits themselves.
Specifically, the groups that have MSs integrated to a higher level obtain audit results
that include the opportunities for the improvement of integration. In contrast, Group 0
does not obtain such suggestions to a large extent (e.g., see Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008).
670 It should be noted that this study contains two important limitations. The first
limitation is related to the fact that the groups of organizations used for the analysis
herein were already created in a previous study (Bernardo et al., 2009). The second
limitation refers to the specific perspective of the survey respondents. Namely, the
responses were asked and obtained from the organizations’ managers only, and not
from the registrars or other external audit bodies. Related to this limitation was the
absence of additional information on the MS managers or auditors themselves, such as
competence, experience or background, which was not asked for in the survey.
Although the data obtained from the study is objective and results may not have
been affected by these limitations, adding the related perspectives could enrich this
research. Therefore, future research may include an examination of the integration of
MS audits through the grouping based on the integration of specific audit aspects. In
addition, auditors’ perspectives may be taken into account.

References
AENOR (2005), UNE 66177 Sistemas de gestión. Guı́a para la integración de los sistemas de
gestión, Asociacion Española de Normalizacion y Certificacion, Madrid.
Baldi, D. (1999), “Management system mergers”, Environmental Protection, available at: www.
eponline.com/ (accessed February 7, 2009).
Bamber, C., Sharp, J. and Castka, P. (2004), “Third party assessment: the role of the maintenance
function in an integrated management system”, Journal of Quality Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 26-36.
Beckmerhagen, I., Berg, H., Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (2003), “Integration of
management systems: focus on safety in the nuclear industry”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 209-27.
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S. and Heras, I. (2009), “How integrated are
environmental, quality and other standardized management systems? An empirical
study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 742-50.
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S. and Heras, I. (2010), “An empirical study on the
integration of management system audits”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 486-95.
BSI (2006), PAS 99 Specification of Common Management System Requirements as a Framework
for Integration, British Standards Institution, London.
Dansk Standard (2005), DS 8001 Ledelsessystemer – Vejledning i opbygning af et integreret
ledelsessystem, Dansk Standard, Copenhagen.
Darnall, N., Seol, I. and Sarkis, J. (2009), “Perceived stakeholders’ influences and organizations’
use of environmental audits”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 170-87.
Douglas, A. and Glen, D. (2000), “Integrated management systems in small and medium
enterprises”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4-6, pp. 686-90.
Fresner, J. and Engelhardt, G. (2004), “Experiences with integrated management systems for two
small companies in Austria”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 623-31.
ISO (2002), ISO 19011. International Standard: Guidelines for Quality and/or Environmental Relationships
Management Systems Auditing, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2004), Auditing Continual Improvement, ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group, International
between audits
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, available at: www.iso.org/tc176/sc2 (accessed and systems
January 20, 2009).
ISO (2006), ISO 17021. International Standard; Conformity Assessment – Requirements for
Bodies Providing Audit and Certification of Management Systems, International 671
Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2008), The Integrated Use of Management System Standards, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2009), The ISO Survey of Certifications – 2008, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva.
Jørgensen, T., Remmen, A. and Mellado, M. (2006), “Integrated management systems – three
different levels of integration”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 713-22.
Karapetrovic, S. (2002), “Strategies for the integration of management systems and standards”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 61-7.
Karapetrovic, S. (2003), “Musings on integrated management systems”, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Karapetrovic, S. (2005), “IMS in the M(E)SS with CSCS”, Total Quality Management and
Excellence – Menadzment Totalnim Kvalitetom i Izvrsnost, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 19-25.
Karapetrovic, S. and Casadesus, M. (2009), “Implementing environmental with other
standardized management systems: scope, sequence, time and integration”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 533-40.
Karapetrovic, S. and Jonker, J. (2003), “Integration of standardized management systems:
searching for a recipe and ingredients”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 451-9.
Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (1998), “Integration of quality and environmental management
systems”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 204-13.
Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (2000), “Generic audit of management systems:
fundamentals”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 279-94.
Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (2001), “Audit system: concepts and practices”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13-28.
Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, M. and Heras, I. (2006), Dynamics and Integration of Standardized
Management Systems: An Empirical Study, Documenta Universitaria, Girona.
Kirkby, A. (2002), “The one-stop shop”, Quality World, January, pp. 2-4.
Kraus, J. and Grosskopf, J. (2008), “Auditing integrated management systems: considerations and
practice tips”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 7-16.
Labodová, A. (2004), “Implementing integrated management systems using a risk
analysis-based approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 571-80.
Pojasek, R. (2006), “Is your integrated management system really integrated?”, Environmental
Quality Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 89-97.
Power, D. and Terziovski, M. (2005), “The process, practice and outcomes of non-financial
auditing: five Australian case studies”, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology
and Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 52-82.
SAI Global (1999), AS/NZS 4581 Management System Integration – Guidance to Business,
Government and Community Organizations, SAI Global Sydney, Sydney.
Salomone, R. (2008), “Integrated management systems: experiences in Italian organizations”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 16, pp. 1786-806.
TQM Seghezzi, H. (1997), “Business concept redesign”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3,
pp. 36-43.
23,6 Seghezzi, H. (2001), “Business excellence: what is to be done?”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12
Nos 7/8, pp. 861-6.
Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B. (1998), “System integration: the views and activities of certification
bodies”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 288-92.
672 Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B. (1999a), “Models of management system standards: a review of the
integration issues”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 279-98.
Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B. (1999b), “Integration of quality, environment and health and safety
management systems: an examination of key issues”, Journal of Engineering Manufacture,
Vol. 213 No. 3, pp. 275-83.
Zeng, S., Shi, J. and Lou, G. (2007), “A synergetic model for implementing an integrated
management system: an empirical study in China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15
No. 18, pp. 1760-7.
Zeng, S., Tian, P. and Shi, J. (2005), “Implementing integration of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 for
construction”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 394-407.
Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A. (2005), “Integrated management system. The experience of three
Australian organizations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 211-32.

About the authors

Merce Bernardo is a Lecturer in the Business Economics and Management Department at the
University of Barcelona. Her research specialties are integrated management systems, diffusion
of standards and e-quality measurement. She has been involved in different projects related to
these specialities. She has published several academic and non-academic papers about these
specialities, both national and international. Merce Bernardo is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: merce.bernardo@ub.edu
Marti Casadesus is Professor in the Business Organization, Management and Product Design
Department at the University of Girona. His principal research is in quality management
systems. He has published numerous articles in both national and international academic
journals and has participated in the writing of different research books. One of his articles was
given the most outstanding article award of the TQM Magazine in 2000.
Stanislav Karapetrovic is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Alberta
in Edmonton, Canada. He teaches courses in quality and engineering management. His research
is mainly focused on the integration of standardized management systems. He also works on
standards development through ISO/TC176 at the Canadian and international levels.
Iñaki Heras is an Associate Professor at the University of Basque Country in Spain. He has
published several articles in both national and international academic journals (i.e. European
Business Review, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management). He has also participated as a main researcher in several projects on the
adoption of both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 financed by The Basque Country University and the
Spanish Administration.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints